Regional aviation

• [Jun 17] Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): ' . . CLIMATE change exists and it must be dealt with in the round . . taking account of the wish to travel and the environmental footprint.'

I congratulate Phil Wilson on securing the debate. I do not agree with everything he said, as I will explain, but I listened to him with more sympathy than I would have done to his predecessor-[Interruption.] I wish that the former Chief Whip, Hilary Armstrong, would stand up and make a speech instead of continually intervening from a sedentary position. She does that all the time, and she is still doing it.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield set out two objectives. First, he recognises the need to secure help for regional economies, and I support that objective. Secondly, he expressed sympathy for direct flights, or point-to-point flights, as my hon. Friend Lembit Öpik described them. I also support that objective. Clearly, if one must travel from A to B and can do so without changing flights on the way, carbon emissions are reduced.

I support those two objectives, but I do not agree with the prescription set out by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I have listened to hon. Members here and on the Floor of the House who seem to live in a parallel world where climate change does not exist. It does exist-

Hilary Armstrong (North West Durham, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): In a moment.

Climate change exists and it must be dealt with in the round, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire did, taking account of the wish to travel and the environmental footprint.

Hilary Armstrong (North West Durham, Labour): I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way to me. I certainly do not want to do anything other than improve climate change, carbon footprinting and so on in this country and worldwide. Does he accept that BMI's policy, for example, of cancelling flights from Teesside means that the environmental damage is greater because people use other airports? What faith does he have in manufacturing potential? Despite what has been said, a firm in my constituency is close to an American company that is delivering significant changes to aeroplanes that will reduce their effect on the environment. We should support and invest in such companies to produce better environmental opportunities for air travel.

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I agree that we should support such companies, but I have talked to the aviation industry and others in the transport sector, and my assessment is that we are some way from dealing with carbon emissions from aviation, although solutions for road transport are rather nearer. We are probably 30, 40 or 50 years away from a sensible solution that will make a real difference to alternative fuel technology for aviation.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield has a correct beef to pursue in BAA's and British Airways' attitude. Perhaps BA should be called "London Airways" because of its policy of marginalising regional airports. I know that colleagues in Manchester feel strongly about the reduction in the number of direct flights from Manchester to New York because they must now go via Heathrow with consequent extra carbon emissions. We can agree on such points.

I am conscious that there has been a big drop in the number of people using Durham Tees Valley airport. CAA figures show that 19,601 passengers used it in February 2009, which is a 52 per cent. fall from the previous year, and such falls must be examined. There is no indication that a third runway at Heathrow would solve the problem. The approach of the hon. Member for Sedgefield should be regulatory, because with a third runway BAA and BA will simply provide more flights to New York, Bangalore and Singapore.

Phil Wilson (PPS (Mr Vernon Coaker, Minister of State), Home Office; Sedgefield, Labour): My point was that ring-fencing some of the slots at Heathrow would help to mitigate the problem of regional airports that do not have access to Heathrow.

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I understand that.

I want to return to the problem of carbon emissions and the point that Mark Lazarowicz made. If projected carbon emissions from aviation, even according to Government figures, stabilised where they are now and remained the same in 2050, a cut not of 80 per cent. but of 89 per cent. would be required from this country to compensate for what would effectively be a free ride for aviation. The current projection is that aviation emissions will increase by 38 per cent. by 2040.

The problem is largely out of control, so it is reasonable to consider the alternatives, including high-speed rail. I do not agree with the reference made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield to the north-east being peripheral, nor do I believe that Exeter is peripheral.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State), Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I will not, because I have done so twice.

For me, Scottish islands such as Shetland are peripheral. Exeter is not. I challenge Alison Seabeck to travel door to door from this place to the middle of Exeter by rail or air-

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State), Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): In a moment. If the hon. Lady travelled door to door by rail or air, allowing for transport to Heathrow and the queues there, would she get to Exeter quickest by train or plane? I challenge her to make that journey.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State), Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to do the journey to Plymouth. As I have explained, it takes five hours by rail or car from my base in London to my home in Plymouth. If I use the airline, which uses City airport, it takes two and a half hours.

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I referred to Exeter, not Plymouth, but the hon. Lady was welcome to intervene.

Studies have been done and for destinations such as Paris, Brussels, Manchester and elsewhere it is quicker to travel from door to door by rail.

Phil Wilson (PPS (Mr Vernon Coaker, Minister of State), Home Office; Sedgefield, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I will not, because I have only four minutes left.

It takes two hours 40 minutes to travel to Darlington-even now, with an unimproved rail line from King's Cross. That compares favourably with the overall journey time by air, taking account of delays at the airport.

In response to the point about high-speed rail, I understand that, thanks to Lord Adonis and the Government, High Speed 2 is being considered not only for London to the west midlands, but for scoping corridors way beyond that, including to the north-east. I look forward to the report on High Speed 2. My vision for high-speed rail is that it should benefit the north-east, Scotland and Wales. It should not be one line. That is achievable and has been done elsewhere in Europe, so there is no reason why it should not be done in this country.

It is worth making the point that regional airports have sought to expand in recent years, and many of the connections have been for holiday purposes. There is nothing wrong with that, but we must not assume that extra slots will necessarily be taken up by journeys to London for business purposes. They will also be taken up for holiday purposes to holiday destinations.

On the alternatives to short-haul flights to Heathrow and comparing them with the alternative of high-speed rail, when businesses were polled in 2008, almost 10 times as many UK businesses supported the suggestion of a high-speed rail link from London to the north as supported the expansion of Heathrow with extra slots to the north-east.

Phil Wilson (PPS (Mr Vernon Coaker, Minister of State), Home Office; Sedgefield, Labour): The Airport Operators Association has said:

"Using CAA statistics, even if all of Heathrow's domestic passengers switched to rail, Heathrow would operate at around 90 per cent. of capacity and still be full before 2020 when a third runway could be operational. Rail is not an alternative to airport expansion, but it is part of a coherent intermodal transport policy."

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I do not accept that. There is an alternative to a large range of domestic destinations and new European destinations. There should be direct train journeys to Amsterdam and Berlin, for example. There is no reason why we should not be able to make such journeys by rail. Yesterday, I met Deutsche Bahn to talk about that. Plans are progressing well, and when EU open access occurs in 2010, we will see more of those journeys.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour): Twenty-four hours ago, Mr. Streeter, I sat in your Chair and heard a fine speech by Mr. Brazier in which he comprehensively demolished the research underpinning what Oxford Economic Forecasting has said, which shaped the predicted usage of aviation, both freight and passenger. Is it not about time that we had a thoroughly independent and effective analysis that is more balanced than the Oxford document, which is substantially discredited?

• Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): Yes, it is. The aviation industry has made a practice in the past 10 years of skewing figures to try to influence Government policy in an improper direction. We need an independent look at the issue, and I hope that with a new Minister in charge and Lord Adonis as Secretary of State, we will get it.

I have not been able to make all the points that I wanted to-I have been keen to give way to hon. Members-but let me say to the hon. Member for Sedgefield that I very much sympathise with his wish to support his regional economy. That is right. I also sympathise over the lack of direct flights, the pulling of flights and the loss of slots to London. However, the prescription that he produced for more flying, while dismissing the environmental case and ignoring high-speed rail, is not the right solution.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament